As Adventists, do we blindly believe in the Bible and reject science?

[Doug]

Science tells us a lot, it proved that lightning did not come from Thor's Hammer and the universe does not revolve around the Earth. Do we just believe what the Bible says even though science says differently?

[aldona]

I hope not.

God gave us His word, but He also created the universe and everything in it, and gave us intelligence and inquiring minds and expects us to use them.

My firm belief is that the more we diligently search for truth (both scientific truth and Biblical truth), and the more knowledge we have, the more the apparent discrepancies between science and the Bible will disappear.

Examples:

- In medieval times, many Christians believed that fossils were a "trick" created by the devil to confuse believers (presumably this was the closest the devil could get to creating something.) Now, scientists with a Christian belief system accept that fossils are relics from the Flood.

- When I was in primary school (grade school) at an SDA school (1980's), one of our teachers would tell us that the idea of plate tectonics and continental drift was an evolutionist lie and had no basis in the Bible. Now we have no problems with the idea of continents moving, and indeed it seems to be referred to in the Bible. (Genesis 10:25 - "To Eber were born two sons; the name of the one was Peleg ( = 'division'), for in his days the earth was divided...").

I'm sure our learned friends from various disciplines could contribute many more.

Maybe I'm biased because I'm a science geek, but I have never been afraid to study and ask questions and find out about this wonderful world that God created and placed us in.

When done honestly and in a spirit of humility (i.e. "I do not have all the answers and I am willing to learn something new"), this has only tended to strengthen my faith. (The nature of this faith is quite different to a blind, literal, "black-and-white" acceptance of what we think the Bible says, but that is a topic for another day.)

Now, if only our fellow Adventists would stop using words like "science" and "higher education" and "book learning" as if they were dirty curse words... and stop using "educated" as a synonym for "lacking spirituality"...it would get a lot easier.

aldona

[olger]

The real question here is which source of authority will you choose if there is a dis-agreement between these two?

What is your final magisterium that you will live by? Which?

og

[Dr. Shane]

Science is not able to explain everything in the world or universe around us. It tries to but certainly is not able to say with certainty many things.

The purpose of the Bible is not to explain the world around us scientifically. The Bible is a divinely, inspired book of history, prophecy and poetry. It is not a science book.

Science has not proven anything that is contrary to the historical records recorded in the Bible. Science simply makes speculation about things that would be in conflict with the divine history written down by the prophets. Science has not proven the age of the Earth, the origin of life or the evolution of one species from another. Science simply speculates on these things.

[Gerr]

Science tells us a lot, it proved that lightning did not come from Thor's Hammer and the universe does not revolve around the Earth. Do we just believe what the Bible says even though science says differently?

I don't find Thor's Hammer in the Bible, so how can you compare belief in it to blind disregard of science?

And just what ESTABLISHED scientific fact is being disregarded by believers because of Scripture?

[Haldog]

Yes, we should blindly follow what the Bible says. God would not give us a lie, or hide a truth from us as insinuated by EGW (God's hand was over the date, lol).

As for the age of the earth. Whether it is 6000 years old or 6 billion, neither one contradicts the bible. There is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. We have no way of telling how long this gap is.

How do we know there is a gap? Easy. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Then in verse 2 the earth was without form and void, less than perfect. God doesn't create anything without form or void. Something happened to the earth between those 2 verses which virtually destroyed it and God had to start over again. My theory is that it was Satan who destroyed it once and he is trying to do it again.

[Doug]

Science is not able to explain everything in the world or universe around us. It tries to but certainly is not able to say with certainty many things.

The purpose of the Bible is not to explain the world around us scientifically. The Bible is a divinely, inspired book of history, prophecy and poetry. It is not a science book.

Science has not proven anything that is contrary to the historical records recorded in the Bible. Science simply makes speculation about things that would be in conflict with the divine history written down by the prophets. Science has not proven the age of the Earth, the origin of life or the evolution of one species from another. Science simply speculates on these things.

Don't we believe that the earth is less than 10K years while science says the earth is over a billion years?

[Gerr]

Most SDAs believe LIFE on planet earth is less 10k yrs old, but I dare say that most SDAs who have some science exposure and KNOW their Bible well, do NOT believe the planet itself is less than 10k yrs old.

[Tallmark]

I wouldn't rely on those methods of testing to verify the age of the earth. However old it is, it was created by God in 7 days. As far as Thor's hammer goes, watch "Adventures in Babysitting". His secret identity is revealed in this comedy.

[Gerr]

What was created on the first day?

[phkrause]

Tallmark if you read the first two verses of Genesis 1 you actually get the idea that there was something there when God created the earth. It says "The earth was without form and void" Genesis 1:2 (first little part) RSV. Just from that alone you get the feeling that there was already something there. And God than put his finishing touches on it. Now after having said that, I wonder what the actual Hebrew says, was the there something changed when they translated it to english. Just a thought. I'm disagreeing or agreeing with your post.

pk

[Amelia]

Personally I don't feel there is a gap 'tween Gen 1:1 and 1:2. Gen 1:1 is the opening statement for the rest of the following information. Rather like "Call me Ishmael" or "Marley was dead to begin with".

[Mark Aurelius]

I've been grappling with the first chapter of Genesis for a while. It's a fascinating chapter. My thoughts on it are here:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/pattersonmark/BibleNotes/Genesis/gen1.html

[Gerr]

Personally I don't feel there is a gap 'tween Gen 1:1 and 1:2. Gen 1:1 is the opening statement for the rest of the following information. Rather like "Call me Ishmael" or "Marley was dead to begin with".

What was created on the first day?

[Gail]

Yes, we should blindly follow what the Bible says. God would not give us a lie, or hide a truth from us as insinuated by EGW (God's hand was over the date, lol).

As for the age of the earth. Whether it is 6000 years old or 6 billion, neither one contradicts the bible. There is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. We have no way of telling how long this gap is.

How do we know there is a gap? Easy. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Then in verse 2 the earth was without form and void, less than perfect. God doesn't create anything without form or void. Something happened to the earth between those 2 verses which virtually destroyed it and God had to start over again. My theory is that it was Satan who destroyed it once and he is trying to do it again.

The book I am reading now, Dinosaurs- An Adventist View, discusses this theory as well as others :)